The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to establish the bonafide requirement, personal cultivation capability, and holdings qualification of the landlord's heirs for the resumption of lands under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in revision Application No. MRT-SH-III-2-1992 on 12th september, 1994. Shankar Digambar Dixit was the owner of the lands which were part of Survey No. 434 situated at Village Pangaon, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur. The petitioners are the tenants in respect of the said lands. On 6th June, 1961, Shankar digambar Dixit sought an exemption certificate under section 88c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948 (in short " the said Act" ). This application was dismissed by the Tahsildar, Barshi. An Appeal was preferred by the owner which was allowed on 12th December, 1964. The matter was then remanded to the Tahsildar for disposing it of in accordance with law. The proceedings were dismissed again by the Tahsildar and an Appeal was preferred before the Deputy Collector. That Appeal was dismissed on 19th April, 1968 pursuant to which the landlord filed Writ Petition No. 2729 of 1968. The petition was allowed and the matter was remanded by the High Court for a fresh hearing.

( 2 ) ON 16th September, 1977, an exemption certificate was granted to the landlord in TNC Case no. 46 of 1967. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 50 of 1977. That Appeal was dismissed and a Writ Petition was filed by the petitioners being Writ Petition No. 2533 of 1979. The main contention of the petitioners was that Shankar Digambar Dixit was not the exclusive owner of the lands on 1st April, 1957 i. e. on the tiller" s day. The petitioners contended that partition had taken place only after 1st April, 1957. This court by an order of 10th January, 1982 called for findings on the issue as to whether partition had been effected prior to 1st April, 1957 between the deceased Shankar Digambar Dixit and his brother. The Tenancy Avval Karkoon by his order dated 15th november, 1983 held that the partition had indeed being effected prior to 1st April, 1957. After the findings were remitted to this court, the petitioners" Writ Petition was dismissed. A further direction was issued to the Tahsildar, Barshi to hear and decide the Application of the deceased shankar Digambar Dixit for possession under Section 33b of the said Act. A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the petitioners challenging that order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 24th September, 1984.

( 3 ) AN enquiry was conducted by the Tenancy Avval karkoon in Tenancy Case No. 33 of 1977. The petitioners contended that during the proceedings, the deceased respondent had sold the lands at kalegaon and therefore the demand or requirement of the land for personal cultivation was not bonafide. These submissions made on behalf of the petitioners were not countenanced by the Tenancy Avval Karkoon who by its order dated 20th January, 1986 directed the petitioners to hand over possession of the lands to the deceased respondent i. e. Shankar Digambar dixit.

( 4 ) AN Appeal was preferred by the petitioners against this order in Tenancy Appeal No. 9 of 1986. The Assistant Collector, Solapur dismissed the appeal on 20th February, 1987. The petitioners then approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision. They contended that the deceased respondent did not require the disputed lands bonafide for his personal use and cultivation. They also contended that the holdings of the petitioners and the respondents were wrongly calculated. The maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the Revision application and remanded the matter for a decision on the comparative holdings of the landlord and tenants.

( 5 ) THE enquiry resulted in a decision from the tenancy Avval Karkoon to the effect that the deceased respondent was entitled to possession of the entire disputed lands. He, therefore, directed the petitioners to hand over possession of the lands to the deceased landlord. An Appeal was preferred by the petitioners contending that the calculations for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document